norman regional health system: a city-owned public trust … · 2018. 4. 25. · case study...

Case StudyHigh-Performing Health Care Organization • April 2010

Norman Regional Health System: A City-Owned Public Trust Dedicated to Improving Performance

Sharon Silow-Carroll, M.B.a., M.S.w. health ManageMent aSSoCiateS

Vital Signs

Location: Norman, Okla.

Type: City-owned public trust, non-teaching

Beds: 337 beds (Norman Regional Hospital), 45 beds (Moore Medical Center)

Distinction: Norman Regional Health System, a public hospital system, ranks in the top 5 percent of U.S. hospitals on a composite of 23 process-of-care quality measures. More than 2,000 public and private hospitals were eligible for the analysis.

Timeframe: July 2007 through June 2008. See Appendix for full methodology. This case study describes the strategies and factors that appear to contribute to high adherence to “core” measures at Norman Regional Health System. It is based on information obtained from interviews with key hospital personnel, publicly available information, and materials provided by the hospital during June to October 2009.

SummARyNorman Regional Health System, comprising Norman Regional Hospital and Moore Medical Center, is a publicly owned trust that is both community hospital and safety-net hospital for the low-income and uninsured patients of Norman and Moore, Oklahoma.1 This dual role gives staff a sense of accountability to their patients and fuels their commitment to quality and patient safety. Nearly a decade ago, Norman’s Board chair and a top physician administrator became champions for quality improvement, motivated by the fact that Norman had achieved just average scores on quality measures. Organizational, cultural, and system changes at Norman Regional, including the development of order sets and care plans, per-formance data transparency, concurrent review for certain patient groups, as well

For more information about this study, please contact:

Sharon Silow-Carroll, M.B.A., M.S.W.Health Management [email protected]

To download this publication and learn about others as they become available, visit us online at www.commonwealthfund.org and register to receive Fund e-Alerts.

Commonwealth Fund pub. 1393 Vol. 44

The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performance health care system. The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. Support for this research was provided by The Commonwealth Fund. The views presented here are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, officers, or staff.

mailto:[email protected]://www.commonwealthfund.org/myprofile/myprofile_edit.htm

2 the CoMMonwealth Fund

as a pharmacist-driven intervention, have led to sus-tained progress.

This case study focuses on Norman Regional Health System’s achievement in providing recom-mended treatment on process-of-care, or “core,” mea-sures. The measures, developed by the Hospital Quality Alliance and reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), relate to achievement of recommended treatment in four clini-cal areas: heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical care. On average, public hospitals do not per-form as well as private hospitals on the core measures. The differences in performance between public and private hospitals are not well understood, but may relate to public hospitals having more complex patients, tighter budgets, or older infrastructure. For further information about the public hospital selection process and cross-cutting lessons about their improve-ment efforts, please see our introduction to the public hospital case study series.

ORgANIzATION Norman Regional Health System (NRHS), which includes Norman Regional Hospital and Moore Medical Center, is based in the community of Norman in south-central Oklahoma. Norman Regional Hospital is licensed for 337 beds and offers a full range of acute-care services. It is the only full-service acute care hospital in Norman, although other health sys-tems, primarily in the Oklahoma City suburbs to the north, present some competition. The hospital also serves the rural areas south of the city and into north-eastern Texas.

When Norman Regional Hospital purchased the 45-bed Moore Medical Center in February 2007, the name Norman Regional Health System was adopted to include both hospitals and affiliated entities. The qual-ity data that NRHS reports to CMS combines data from both hospitals, although it mostly reflects care experiences at the much larger Norman Regional. For this reason, Norman Regional is the main focus of this case study. The health system also encompasses outpa-tient diagnostic centers, physician practices, a primary

care network, and other services. In October 2009, NRHS opened HealthPlex, a hospital featuring cardio-vascular, orthopedic, neurosurgical, maternity, gyneco-logical, and newborn/pediatric services.

In 2007, NRHS began a major electronic health record implementation project with MEDITECH.2 It currently has a hybrid system, with mostly electronic records, which can be integrated with local physician office systems, and some paper records, including progress notes and orders. NRHS relies on MIDAS systems to manage core measure and other quality and safety data.3 MIDAS also facilitates case managers’ work in documenting and tracking the severity of ill-ness and the intensity of patient service. NRHS is in the process of developing computerized provider order entry and an order set management tool.

A PublICly OwNeD HOSPITAlIn 1947, Norman citizens approved a bond issue to build Norman Municipal Hospital in response to the closure of the city’s only hospital, in 1943. In 1984, the hospital was renamed Norman Regional Hospital to reflects its growing status as a regional referral cen-ter. Norman Regional Health System continues to be a city-owned “public trust.” The mayor of the city of Norman appoints hospital Board positions, with final approval of all appointments by the city council. The nine-member Board includes community members and physicians who are responsible for stewardship of all health system operations. The Board operates indepen-dently of the mayor and city council, although it needs approval for any ventures requiring indebtedness.

In most respects, Norman Regional operates as a private nonprofit organization. It does not receive city funding and has traditionally had revenues exceeding expenses. Recently, the health system reduced its workforce to compensate for lower vol-umes related to the economic recession. Since Norman Regional Hospital was until recently the only hospital in the community, it is perceived primarily as the com-munity hospital, rather than the safety-net hospital. Compared with national averages, Norman serves a larger portion of “self-pay” patients, mainly rural indi-

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Case%20Studies/2010/Jun/Public%20Hospital%20Case%20Study%20Series%20Introduction.aspx

norMan regional health SySteM: a City-owned PuBliC truSt dediCated to iMProving PerForManCe 3

gent patients and some uninsured patients from Oklahoma City, but a smaller portion of Medicaid patients (Exhibit 1).

According to Darin Smith, Pharm.D., director of pharmacy services and performance improvement, Norman Regional’s position as a publicly owned entity fuels the staff’s commitment to quality and patient ser-vice. “This makes us feel more accountable,” he said. Indeed, the hospital has seen marked improvement and sustained high-level performance on the core measures over the past four years.

PeRfORmANCe ImPROvemeNT STRATegIeS

board and Administration Support Beginning in 2001, Norman Regional became involved in collaboratives, including the Surgical Infection Prevention project, sponsored by CMS, and the “Quality In, Quality Out” collaborative, sponsored by Oklahoma’s Quality Improvement Organization. In examining Norman’s performance on process-of-care measures, hospital leaders found that it had significant room for improvement, with just average scores on some quality measures. This prompted the chairman of the Board and the vice president of medical affairs to become champions for performance improvement, committing their focus and resources to the effort.

For example, since many of the core measures relate to medication practices, Norman Regional cre-

ated a new pharmacist position to develop better medi-cation practices and train staff to follow them. Administrators implemented a gain-sharing bonus for all health system employees tied both to financial per-formance and performance on quality and safety mea-sures. Additionally, part of each unit manager’s bonus is contingent on their units’ achievement of certain goals related to core measures and patient satisfaction.

The hospital also turned what had once been an unpaid position—medical director of clinical effective-ness—into a paid position. “This allowed me to devote more time to performance improvement,” said John Krodel, M.D., who holds the position and spends about 10 to 12 hours per week on such activities. Krodel reviews progress on improvement projects, examines core measure outliers (cases in which care does not comply with core measure protocols), and tries to determine underlying reasons for noncompli-ance. He also reaches out to physicians to discuss how they might improve their practices or documentation.

Order Sets and Concurrent Review Norman Regional put systems in place to make core measures the default or standard practices, closely monitor compliance to these practices, and make cor-rections when appropriate. A few years ago, hospital staff developed and implemented order sets, or care maps, for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical care. The order sets standard-

Exhibit 1. Payer Mix: Norman Regional Hospital and National Average

Normal Regional Hospital (2007)**

National Hospital Average* (2007)

Medicare 39% 39.2%Medicaid 8% 14.8%Commercial/Private 38% 36.5%Self-Pay/Uncompensated 12% Self-pay*** 5.8% UncompensatedOther Government 2% Tri-care 1.5% other governmentOther 2% 2.2% non-patient

* Distribution of hospital cost by payer type, 2007. ** Note: this data was prior to acquisition of MMC). *** A portion of this is paid directly by patients; on average, 4% to 5% of billed charges are recouped for self-pay patients. Sources: Norman Regional Hospital and American Hospital Association, http://www.aha.org/aha/research-and-trends/chartbook/ch4.html.

http://www.aha.org/aha/research-and-trends/chartbook/ch4.html


ize care by defining and sequencing the tasks for spe-cific diagnoses, procedures, or symptoms.

“At first, there was resistance to order sets; the doctors called them ‘cookbook medicine,’” said Smith. But the vice president of medical affairs and the medi-cal director of clinical effectiveness—both physician champions for performance improvement—met with members of the medical staff in small groups. They reviewed the protocols, explained how they worked, and asked for feedback, which promoted buy-in. “This was much more effective than presenting the care maps at departmental meetings, where many physi-cians are not present,” said Krodel.

Later, these leaders sat down with physicians who still were not using the order sets. They explained the evidence behind them and the need to improve. “We had to keep after them, but they eventually came along,” said Smith. Particular focus was given to the emergency department physicians, who see a signifi-cant number of hospital admissions related to pneumo-nia and acute myocardial infarction.

Exhibit 2 illustrates the order set for commu-nity-acquired pneumonia. At Norman, more than 90 percent of pneumonia patients are seen in the emer-gency department prior to admission. Therefore, this order set is initiated by the emergency department physician with the clear understanding that initial anti-biotics, blood cultures, and other required care pro-cesses are obtained in the emergency department, before patients are admitted to the hospital. The order set with the physician’s instructions is scanned and sent electronically to the pharmacy, where it is entered into the medical record. A clinical pharmacist then fol-lows up to ensure that patients are receiving appropri-ate care and staff are appropriately documenting their actions. Similar concurrent review processes are in place for heart failure and acute myocardial infarction patients, giving staff the opportunity in many cases to correct problems and provide appropriate care.

About four years ago, Norman Regional began utilizing surgical care measures and other core mea-sures as medical staff department indicators. The med-icine, family medicine, surgery, and ob-gyn depart-

ments adopted these performance measures as part of the peer review process. “It meant there were many more charts to review, but everyone bought into it,” said Krodel.

Also during this time frame, the leadership took several steps to improve employee satisfaction. Nine management-led employee teams were tasked to: develop behavioral standards for employees, conduct and follow up on employee satisfaction surveys, improve communication within the hospital, develop ways to reward and recognize employee performance, improve physician satisfaction and efficiency, and take other steps. This five-year initiative resulted in a con-sistently low turnover rate among nurses and physi-cians, which in turn helps Norman Regional maintain its quality improvement processes by reducing the need to teach the care protocols and introduce the cul-ture of quality improvement to new staff.4

Performance feedback and Transparency Ongoing review and reporting of performance data are critical to maintaining high levels of performance at NRHS.

Approximately two and one-half full-time employees are dedicated to retrospective data abstrac-tion for adherence to core measures and submission to CMS. Additionally, a nurse reviews all cases of non-compliance and provides detail about the “who, what, when, where, and why” in order to provide feedback to staff and physicians. These details are documented, and reports are generated periodically for managers, physicians, and the staff members involved with each outlier. The reports include the names of the staff members involved and place accountability at the indi-vidual level.

Norman Regional developed a “dashboard” to report quarterly performance on the core measures to Board members, administrators, clinical leaders, and staff. Exhibit 3 is a sample dashboard for the surgical measures, with bright colors reflecting the level of per-formance.


Exhibit 2. Pneumonia Order Set

Source: Norman Regional Health System, 2009

NORMAN REGIONAL HOSPITALMOORE MEDICAL CENTERHEALTHPLEXPHYSICIAN ORDERS

Pneumonia Admit NON − ICU/CVU

05400908 Page 1 of 2DO NOT WRITE ON OR BELOW THIS AREAORDERS MAY BE CUT OFF BY FAX MACHINES

Physician’s SignatureDATE

Patient Sticker

TIME

ORD


If a case that falls out of compliance involves a physician, it undergoes peer review and results in an “outlier drill-down report” that explains what was out of compliance as well as the circumstances and possi-ble causes. This report is then reviewed by the medical director of clinical effectiveness and returned to the physician for response. Managers are also tasked with reviewing outliers with nurses who are found to have contributed to the process failure. “It’s important to give detailed feedback. Physicians and staff can’t

argue if you present them with the specifics of the actual case,” said Smith. This process often uncovers circumstances that may have prohibited the recom-mended care from being provided and enables staff to discuss ways to improve care processes.

In one case, the medical director for perfor-mance improvement contacted a physician who had not given an ACE inhibitor to a patient. After both par-ties reviewed the case, it became clear that the physi-cian had been correct, but had failed to document why

Exhibit 3. Norman Regional Health System Surgical Care Core Measures Dashboard

SURGICAL CARE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Prepared by the Performance Improvement Dept.10/09/09

Indicator Goal 3rd Q 07 4th Q 07 1st Q 08 2nd Q 08 3rd Q 08 4th Q 08 1st Q 09 2nd Q 09Appropriate Care (ABX Measures Only)

95% 92%(238/259)

95%(276/292)

90%(241/268)

89%(229/257)

93%(277/299)

90%(219/242)

92%(202/219)

91%(185/203)

Appropriate Care (All SCIP Measures) 95%

91%(613/676)

94%(671/713)

91%(596/657)

86%(339/394)

90%(378/420)

88%(323/367)

91%(301/330)

89%(284/320)

INF 1-Prophylactic Abx within 1 hr(2 hr for vanc & quinolones)

95% 98%(250/255)

99%(289/292)

94%(251/266)

93%(237/256)

97%(289/298)

95%(225/237)

97%(207/213)

97%(193/199)

INF 2-Appropriate Prophylactic Abx selection

95% 99%(256/259)

99%(289/292)

99%(261/263)

99%(248/251)

99%(296/299)

99%(239/240)

100%(219/219)

100%(201/201)

INF 3-Prophylactic Abx DC within 24 hrs (48hrs Cardiac)

95% 93%(222/240)

96%(272/282)

95%(237/250)

96%(229/238)

95%(274/287)

95%(217/228)

94%(188/199)

93%(171/184)

INF 4-CABG/Other Card Surg 6 AM postop glucose less than 200 mg/dL postop days 1 & 2

100%89%

(16/18)76%

(13/17)91%

(21/23)97%

(31/32)80%

(12/15)88%

(14/16)94%

(16/17)73%

(11/15)INF 6-Appropriate Hair Removal Documented

100% 99%(668/676)

99%(708/712)

99%(651/657)

99%(392/394)

99%(416/420)

100%(367/367)

100%(330/330)

99%(318/320)

INF 7-Colorectal patients - postop normothermia

95% 100%(23/23)

100%(28/28)

94%(17/18)

85%(23/27)

96%(26/27)

96%(23/24)

100%(16/16)

100%(24/24)

Indicator Goal 3rd Q 07 4th Q 07 1st Q 08 2nd Q 08 3rd Q 08 4th Q 08 1st Q 09 2nd Q 09

Card 3-Beta blocker received perioperatively (if previously on a beta blocker)

95%90%

(115/128)95%

(105/110)89%

(129/145)92%

(76/83)92%

(78/85)81%

(56/69)85%

(50/59)90%

(63/70)

VTE 1-Appropriate VTE prophylaxis ordered

95% 95%(334/348)

98%(377/383)

99%(322/326)

96%(312/324)

99%(356/360)

97%(94/97)

95%(72/76)

99%(87/88)

VTE 2-Appropriate VTE prophylaxis received within 24 hrs prior to surgery to 24 hours after surgery

95%

93%(322/348)

96%(369/383)

96%(314/326)

94%(306/324)

98%(351/360)

93%(90/97)

95%(71/75)

95%(83/87)

90 - 100% = GreenBelow 80% = Red 80-90% = Yellow

DATA AS OF 10/09/2009 Appropriate Care is % of patients who received all measures for

which they qualified.

Source: Norman Regional Health System, October 2009.


there should be an exception to the protocol. This phy-sician has improved documentation since this incident.

Clinical Quality Council The implementation of the tasks associated with core measure standards often falls to nurses. To engage them, Norman Regional administrators established a Clinical Quality Council approximately two years ago. Chaired by staff nurses, the council monitors core measure performance and identifies and removes obstacles to compliance. It also uses color-coded dash-boards to display data on compliance rates for core measures and other performance indicators, such as hand hygiene. Random observations are performed to ensure nurses are complying with core measures and appropriately documenting their actions; unit-level data from these observations are included in the dash-boards. Staff can access the dashboards to see how well their unit performs compared with others. The Clinical Quality Council dashboards are also presented to the Performance Improvement Committee and the Board.

“The dashboards allow nursing staff to see where they need to improve, and the units take action,” said Nancy Brown, chief nursing officer.

Identifying Heart failure Patients In the early 2000s, Norman Regional performed poorly on one particular measure—appropriate discharge planning and education for heart failure patients. Analysis revealed that nurses had difficulty identifying heart failure patients because heart failure was not consistently listed on their medical records as the pri-mary diagnosis, and the recorded symptoms could indicate other conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pneumonia. A Norman team involved in a regional quality collaborative developed a screening process to be performed daily by the clini-cal pharmacist. It includes: checking the electronic medical record to identify patients who had one or more of the following: 1) a primary diagnosis of heart failure on previous admission; 2) cardiology consult; or 3) an elevated BNP level, which indicates heart fail-

ure. The pharmacist reviews these patients’ medical histories and physical examinations to determine if their admission was likely related to heart failure. If so, a pharmacy staff member leaves a preprinted order on their chart as a trigger to initiate heart failure edu-cation, including use of a “Home Journal” that outlines the mandated aspects of care, such as weight monitor-ing and follow-up.

Additionally, the pharmacist evaluates flagged patients’ prior admissions to determine if previous studies for left ventricular function assessment (a diag-nostic test for patients with suspected heart failure and recommended care under the core measures) are avail-able. If so, the studies are printed, stamped as prior studies, and left on the new chart for the physician to evaluate and comment on. If the patient is a candidate for an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and no documentation of such a prescription is in the chart, the pharmacist will call the physician or leave a note for them to con-sider prescribing such medication.

Shifting Responsibility to Pharmacy and Nursing Staff As with other hospitals profiled on WhyNotTheBest.org, Norman Regional’s success in achieving high perfor-mance levels on the core measures appears to be due in part to shifting responsibility for certain tasks away from physicians to pharmacy and nursing staff. For example, the position of smoking cessation education nurse was created to identify all patients with a history of smoking. This nurse goes on rounds, assesses patients’ readiness for smoking cessation, and provides them with follow-up options to pursue once they are discharged.

Additionally, all patients are screened by phar-macy staff for pneumococcal vaccination status (and influenza vaccination status from October to March) and vaccination orders are left by the pharmacy or case manager for all candidates. Nurses administer the doses at discharge.

By automating these processes for all patients, physicians do not have to rely on their own memories to order or document the appropriate care.

www.WhyNotTheBest.org


ReSulTSNorman Regional began to experience significant improvements in all four core measure clinical areas in late 2005 and 2006, when many of the administrative, clinical, and cultural changes discussed above were adopted. It experienced some negative trends in 2007,

when it purchased Moore Medical Center (which ini-tially had lower core measure scores), and in early 2008, when it faced some disruptions because of the adoption of a new electronic medical record system. Norman’s improvement curve soon stabilized and

Exhibit 4. Norman Regional Health System: Performance on Appropriate Care Measure for

Acute Myocardial Infarction Core Measures

* Purchase of Moore Medical Center in March 2007.** Conversion to Meditech electronic medical record system in February of 2008.Source: Norman Regional Health System, 2009.

Percent

0

20

60

40

80

100

1Q05

2Q05

3Q05

4Q05

1Q06

1Q07

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

1Q09

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

* **

Exhibit 5. Norman Regional Health System: Performance on Appropriate Care Measure for Heart Failure Core Measures

Source: Norman Regional Health System, 2009.

Percent

0

20

60

40

80

100

1Q05

2Q05

3Q05

4Q05

1Q06

1Q07

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

1Q09

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08


continued to climb as processes were standardized and adopted.

Exhibits 4 through 7 show Norman Regional’s performance on the Appropriateness of Care Measure (reflecting the number of times each measure was carried out 100 percent of the time for each eligible

patient) for the core measures. The superimposed line represents the trend of the scores.

In addition to improving over time, Norman Regional has performed well on the core measures compared with national and Oklahoma hospital aver-ages (Exhibit 8).

Exhibit 7. Norman Regional Health System: Performance on Appropriate Care Measure for Surgical Core Measures


Percent

0

20

60

40

80

100

1Q05

2Q05

3Q05

4Q05

1Q06

1Q07

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

1Q09

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

Exhibit 6. Norman Regional Health System: Performance on Appropriate Care Measure for Pneumonia Core Measures


Percent

0

20

60

40

80

100

1Q05

2Q05

3Q05

4Q05

1Q06

1Q07

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

1Q09

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08


Exhibit 8. Norman Regional Health System Scores on Core Measures Compared with State and National Averages

IndicatorNational Average

Oklahoma Average

Percentage for Norman Regional

Hospital Heart FailurePercent of heart failure patients given discharge instructions 77% 62% 94% of 268 patients Percent of heart failure patients given an evaluation of left ventricular systolic (LVS) function 90% 77% 99% of 350 patients

Percent of heart failure patients given ACE inhibitor or ARB for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) 89% 88% 98% of 86 patients

Percent of heart failure patients given smoking cessation advice/counseling 92% 88% 99% of 100 patients PneumoniaPercent of pneumonia patients assessed and given pneumococcal vaccination 85% 80% 99% of 365 patients Percent of pneumonia patients whose initial emergency room blood culture was performed prior to the administration of the first hospital dose of antibiotics 92% 91% 97% of 496 patients

Percent of pneumonia patients given smoking cessation advice/counseling 90% 85% 100% of 233 patients Percent of pneumonia patients given initial antibiotic(s) within 6 hours after arrival 93% 94% 97% of 446 patients

Percent of pneumonia patients given the most appropriate initial antibiotic(s) 88% 87% 94% of 261 patients Percent of pneumonia patients assessed and given influenza vaccination 85% 83% 98% of 314 patientsHeart AttackPercent of heart attack patients given aspirin at arrival 94% 91% 100% of 164 patients Percent of heart attack patients given aspirin at discharge 93% 89% 98% of 200 patients Percent of heart attack patients given ACE inhibitor or ARB for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) 91% 94% 94% of 33 patients

Percent of heart attack patients given smoking cessation advice/counseling 96% 88% 99% of 96 patients Percent of heart attack patients given beta blocker at discharge 94% 85% 97% of 198 patients Percent of heart attack patients given fibrinolytic medication within 30 minutes of arrival 41% 51% 0 patients

†

Percent of heart attack patients given PCI within 90 minutes of arrival 79% 80% 85% of 39 patients Surgical Care Improvement/Surgical Infection PreventionPercent of surgery patients who were taking heart drugs called beta blockers before coming to the hospital, who were kept on the beta blockers during the period just before and after their surgery

87% 84% 85% of 59 patients

Percent of surgery patients who were given an antibiotic at the right time (within one hour before surgery) to help prevent infection

90% 86% 95% of 1004 patients

Percent of surgery patients who were given the right kind of antibiotic to help prevent infection 94% 90% 99% of 1009 patients

Percent of surgery patients whose preventive antibiotics were stopped at the right time (within 24 hours after surgery) 89% 88% 95% of 952 patients

Percent of all heart surgery patients whose blood sugar (blood glucose) is kept under good control in the days right after surgery 87% 92% 91% of 80 patients

Percent of surgery patients needing hair removed from the surgical area before surgery, who had hair removed using a safer method (electric clippers or hair removal cream—not a razor)

97% 96% 100% of 1510 patients

Percent of surgery patients whose doctors ordered treatments to prevent blood clots after certain types of surgeries 87% 81% 97% of 856 patients

Percent of patients who got treatment at the right time (within 24 hours before or after their surgery) to help prevent blood clots after certain types of surgery 85% 79% 96% of 855 patients

† 0 patients—No patients met the criteria for inclusion in the measure calculation.Source: www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov. Data are from April 2008 through March 2009.

http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov


Norman Regional Health System continues to struggle with some core measures, such as the measure tracking the number of acute myocardial infarction patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes of arrival. An assessment revealed that a key factor is that Norman treats a relatively small number of qualifying patients, so any outlier makes a large percentage difference. Nevertheless, NRHS is trying to improve its performance on this measure; all outlier charts undergo review and are dis-cussed by the Cardiovascular Committee and Emergency Department Committee. Also, NRHS is focusing on reducing both mortality readmission rates, as well as maintaining its achievements in core mea-sure performance.

lessons learned Hospitals seeking to improve performance on the mea-sures might take the following lessons from Norman Regional’s experience:

Hospitals that focus on performance improvement •and have the support of leaders and administrators can have positive results, regardless of whether they are privately or publicly owned.

Analysis and feedback of performance data, •together with concurrent review, can help staff identify and address problems before patients are discharged.

Information technology systems that provide tem-•plates or other prompts while patients are still in the hospital help support staff in providing recom-mended care.

Nurses, care managers, and pharmacists can be •enlisted to help ensure care protocols are followed and support performance improvement initiatives.

Improving quality involves engaging staff. Staff •satisfaction affects patients’ and physicians’ satis-faction, staff turnover rates, and a hospital’s public image and ability to attract talented employees; these factors, in turn, affect the quality of care.

fOR mORe INfORmATIONFor further information, contact Darin Smith, Pharm.D., director of pharmacy services and perfor-mance improvement, Norman Regional Health System, [email protected].

noteS

1 For this case study series on public hospitals, we examined hospitals that are government owned and/or members of the National Association of Public Hospitals. It was not possible to identify and com-pare hospitals by their payer mix, since hospitals maydefinepayercategoriesindifferentways.

2 MEDITECH is a Massachusetts-based software and service company selling information systems to health care systems. For more information see: http://www.meditech.com/AboutMeditech/homep-age.htm.

3 ACS MIDAS+ sells medical information manage-ment technology to health care organizations and systems. For more information see: http://www.midasplus.com/index.asp

4 For more information, see C. Shockey, “Magnetic Culture Attracts Employees, Pleases Customers, and Keeps the Business Healthy,” Journal of Orga-nizational Excellence, Spring 2006 25(2):25–38, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/full-text/112405150/PDFSTART.

mailto:[email protected]://www.meditech.com/AboutMeditech/homepage.htmhttp://www.meditech.com/AboutMeditech/homepage.htmhttp://www.midasplus.com/index.asphttp://www.midasplus.com/index.asphttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112405150/PDFSTARThttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112405150/PDFSTART


Appendix. Selection Methodology

Selection of high-performing public hospitals in process-of-care measures for this series of case studies was based on data submitted by hospitals to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We considered “public” hospitals those that are listed as members of the National Association of Public Hospitals (NAPH) or government-owned facilities. We then selected public hospitals that are in the top quartile among public and private hospitals in an over-all hospital quality composite measure. For further information about the public hospital selection process and cross-cutting lessons about their improvement efforts, please see our introduction to the public hospital case study series. This composite is based on 23 measures that are publicly available on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Hospital Compare Web site, (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov). The 23 measures, developed by the Hospital Quality Alliance, relate to practices in four clinical areas: heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical infections.

Heart Attack Process-of-Care MeasuresPercent of Heart Attack Patients Given ACE Inhibitor or ARB for Left Ventricular Systolic 1. Dysfunction (LVSD)Percent of Heart Attack Patients Given Aspirin at Arrival2. Percent of Heart Attack Patients Given Aspirin at Discharge3. Percent of Heart Attack Patients Given Beta Blocker at Discharge4. Percent of Heart Attack Patients Given Fibrinolytic Medication Within 30 Minutes of Arrival5. Percent of Heart Attack Patients Given PCI Within 90 Minutes of Arrival6. Percent of Heart Attack Patients Given Smoking Cessation Advice/Counseling7.

Heart Failure Process-of-Care MeasuresPercent of Heart Failure Patients Given ACE Inhibitor or ARB for Left Ventricular Systolic 1. Dysfunction (LVSD)Percent of Heart Failure Patients Given an Evaluation of Left Ventricular Systolic (LVS) Function2. Percent of Heart Failure Patients Given Discharge Instructions3. Percent of Heart Failure Patients Given Smoking Cessation Advice/Counseling4.

Pneumonia Process-of-Care MeasuresPercent of Pneumonia Patients Assessed and Given Influenza Vaccination1. Percent of Pneumonia Patients Assessed and Given Pneumococcal Vaccination2. Percent of Pneumonia Patients Given Initial Antibiotic(s) Within 4 Hours After Arrival 3. OR Pneumonia Patients Given Initial Antibiotic(s) Within 6 Hours After ArrivalPercent of Pneumonia Patients Given Oxygenation Assessment4. Percent of Pneumonia Patients Given Smoking Cessation Advice/Counseling5. Percent of Pneumonia Patients Given the Most Appropriate Initial Antibiotic(s)6. Percent of Pneumonia Patients Whose Initial Emergency Room Blood Culture Was Performed 7. Prior to the Administration of the First Hospital Dose of Antibiotics

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Case%20Studies/2010/Jun/Public%20Hospital%20Case%20Study%20Series%20Introduction.aspxhttp://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov


Surgical Care Improvement Process-of-Care MeasuresPercent of Surgery Patients Who Received Preventative Antibiotic(s) One Hour Before Incision1. Percent of Surgery Patients Who Received the Appropriate Preventative Antibiotic(s) for Their Surgery2. Percent of Surgery Patients Whose Preventative Antibiotic(s) Are Stopped Within 24 hours After Surgery3. Percent of Surgery Patients Whose Doctors Ordered Treatments to Prevent Blood Clots (Venous 4. Thromboembolism) for Certain Types of SurgeriesPercent of Surgery Patients Who Received Treatment to Prevent Blood Clots Within 24 Hours Before or 5. After Selected Surgeries

The analysis uses all-payer data from 3rd quarter 2007 through 2nd quarter 2008. To be included in the com-parison pool, a hospital must have submitted data for all 23 measures (even if data submitted were based on zero cases), with a minimum of 30 cases for at least one measure in each of the four clinical areas. A total of 2,083 public and private facilities were eligible for the total pool analysis.

No explicit weighting was incorporated, but higher-occurring cases give weight to that measure in the aver-age. Since these are process measures (versus outcome measures), no risk adjustment was applied. Exclusion criteria and other specifications are available at http://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?cid=1141662756099&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier2&c=Page).

While public ownership and high score on a composite of process-of-care measures were the primary criteria for selection in this series, the hospitals (or hospital system) also had to meet the following criteria: hospital ranked (or the average score across the system’s hospitals examined ranked) within the top half of hospitals in the U.S. in the percentage of patients who gave a rating of 9 or 10 out of 10 when asked how they rate the hospital overall (measured by Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, HCAHPS); full accreditation by the Joint Commission; not an outlier in heart attack and/or heart failure mortality; no major recent violations or sanctions; and geographic diversity.

http://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?cid=1141662756099&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier2&c=Pagehttp://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?cid=1141662756099&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier2&c=Page

This study was based on publicly available information and self-reported data provided by the case study institution(s). The Commonwealth Fund is not an accreditor of health care organizations or systems, and the inclusion of an institution in the Fund’s case studies series is not an endorsement by the Fund for receipt of health care from the institution.

The aim of Commonwealth Fund–sponsored case studies of this type is to identify institutions that have achieved results indicating high performance in a particular area of interest, have undertaken innovations designed to reach higher performance, or exemplify attributes that can foster high performance. The studies are intended to enable other institutions to draw lessons from the studied institutions’ experience that will be helpful in their own efforts to become high performers. It is important to note, however, that even the best-performing organizations may fall short in some areas; doing well in one dimension of quality does not necessarily mean that the same level of quality will be achieved in other dimensions. Similarly, performance may vary from one year to the next. Thus, it is critical to adopt systematic approaches for improving quality and preventing harm to patients and staff.

aBout the author

Sharon Silow-Carroll, M.B.A., M.S.W., is a health policy analyst with nearly 20 years of experience in health care research. She has specialized in health system reforms at the local, state, and national levels; strategies by hospitals to improve quality and patient-centered care; public–private partnerships to improve the performance of the health care system; and efforts to meet the needs of underserved populations. Prior to joining Health Management Associates as a principal, she was senior vice president at the Economic and Social Research Institute, where she directed and conducted research studies and authored numerous reports and articles on a range of health care issues.

aCknowledgMentS

The author wishes to thank the following individuals for generously sharing their time, knowledge, and materials: Nancy Brown, R.N., chief nursing officer, John Krodel, M.D., medical director of clinical effectiveness, and Darin Smith, Pharm.D., director of pharmacy services and performance improvement, Norman Regional Health System.

Editorial support was provided by Martha Hostetter.
www.commonwealthfund.org

norman regional health system: a city-owned public trust … · 2018. 4. 25. · case study...

Documents